In Reply to Parent Post by SteveWaterhouse
I just had a discussion with a client about his applicants. He agreed that too few applicants have any idea what type of job they are applying for. How sad. While I believe that assessments like Predictive Index ® are critical to the hiring process, I also wonder why employers are not doing a better job of filtering onother criteria. If the candidate can't tell you a little about your company and the position they think they want, it might be a good signal that they won't do their homework on the job, either.
Steve, I welcome your insight about the predictive tests themselves, but I sense you have a blind spot about the shortcomings of many of the executives who choose to use your test (or any other similar test.)
I can tell you truthfully that in over 40 years as an executive in American business, I can count on one hand the number of executives who, as you wrote in an earlier comment in this thread, would use the results of the PI test to try to place the candidate in a position different from the one for which he applied
PI is designed to find people who will be productive and happy in a particular job. Companies often look at the PI of applicants and refer them to other positions that may not have been posted.
Many executives may make a determination that a candidate's resume and cover letter might fit him for a different position (whether in rank or department), but I fear meeting the executive who would make such a determination based on the results of a PI test. (Have you ever seen the movie, Gattaca, where the person's job placement and rank were based on DNA analysis? It's a scary worst case scenario of "predictive ability" gone wild.)
The PI test is no substitute for a resume and cover letter demonstrating the value a candidate may have for a specific job opening.
It would be economically unfeasible for potential employers to have a skilled psychologist on staff or on call to interpret the results of such tests and even then, there would have to be a counseling interview to determine the candidate's receptiveness to such "pigeon holing." To have a mere untrained staffer making such determinations from a "cheat sheet" provided by the test provider is really quite beyond the pale of human decency.
Even independent recruiters who think they have a great candidate and stand to make a big commission on placing the candidate in a high-paying position cannot afford the time, energy, and resources to figure out what position a candidate would really be best in.
Organizations which purport, for a fee, to administer PI and myriad other tests to help a client/candidate find his "true calling" more often have no better luck placing such candidate in a position where he is truly happy and productive than pure random luck.
Worst of all, in my opinion, a number of organizations which use PI testing for candidates are showing an innate distrust of the candidate when they attempt to use such a subtle test to determine if what the candidate writes and says about his aptitude and attitude are really true.